Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Erin Brown


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.  

The article is in need of a rewrite and a few more citations of reliable sources, but the major bases like notability and verifiability have at least been covered. AFD has been live long enough to generate consensus. The result was keep. (Non-administrator close) Rt . 15:30, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Erin Brown

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Delete nn bit part and porn actress fails WP:BIO and WP:PORNBIO. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:28, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep. She's starred in many movies that have been extensively rebroadcast on cable and thus she clearly meets WP:BIO. And WP:PORNBIO does not really apply here as she is not exclusively a "porn" actress and in fact has never made any hardcore movies. Qworty (talk) 13:50, 22 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, User:Ceyockey ( talk to me ) 04:30, 23 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep, a B-movie actress to be sure, but I think she might just fall over the line. Lankiveil (talk) 05:08, 23 December 2007 (UTC).
 * Keep per WP:BIO. A few of her movies are staples on late-night cable television, and she plays the lead role in those movies. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:23, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per Metropolitan90. Article needs further citations and a more encyclopedic tone but those things can be worked on. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:54, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. Apparently on November 9, someone replaced the text of the article with content taken from this page, which displays a copyright notice albeit stating: "Additional info at en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misty_Mundae". Given that the previous text of the Wikipedia article had been pretty much encyclopedic in tone, but the replacement text was not, I have reverted the text to the pre-November 9 version to remedy the apparent copyvio. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 11:13, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep – Just enough to make a claim of notability as shown hereGoogle . Shoessss | Chat  13:43, 23 December 2007 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.